Table 2.
Characteristics of included studies comparing direct/indirect restorations.
| Year of Publication | Author(s) | Study Title | Study Type | Study Population | Endodontic Treatment | Cavity Configuration | Number of Teeth per Group | Evaluated Direct Materials | Evaluated Indirect Materials | Aging Procedure | Mechanical Testing | Evaluation of Fracture Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | Camacho et al. [24] | Fracture strength of restored premolars | In vitro study | 120 maxillar premolars | No | MOD cavities | 10 |
1. Composite resin (Z-250) 2. Conventional amalgam restorations (GS-80) 3. Bonded amalgam restorations. |
1. Composite resin (Z-250)
2. Ceramic (Vitadur Alpha) |
No | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2008 | Cobankara et al. [25] | The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars | In vitro study | 60 mandibular molars | Yes | MOD cavities | 10 | 1. Amalgam 2. Composite resin (Clearfil Photoposterior) 3. Polyethylene ribbon fiber (Ribbond) + Composite resin |
Ceramic (Estenia) | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2008 | Coelho-De-Souza et al. [26] | Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage | In vitro study | 100 premolars | No | MOD cavities | 10 | Composite resin (Filtek Z250) | Composite resin (Filtek Z250) | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2008 | Plotino et al. [27] | Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations | In vitro study | 45 mandibular molars | Yes | Class II MO cavities + reduction of 2 mesial cusps | 15 | Composite resin (Estelite Sigma) | Composite resin (Estelite Sigma) | No | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2008 | Ragauska et al. [28] | Influence of ceramic inlays and composite fillings on fracture resistance of premolars in vitro | In vitro study | 27 premolars | No | MOD cavities | 9 | Composite resin (Filtek P60). | Ceramic (Finesse) | No | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2008 | Soares et al. [29] | Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: Fracture resistance and fracture mode |
In vitro study | 70 maxillar premolars | Yes | MOD cavities | 10 | 1. Amalgam 2. Composite resin (Filtek Supreme) |
1. Composite resin (SR Adoro)
2. Ceramic (IPS Empress). |
No | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2012 | Batalha-Silvaa et al. [30] | Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: Direct versus CAD/CAM inlays | In vitro study | 32 maxillar molars | No | MOD cavities | 15 for direct 17 for indirect |
Composite resin (Miris2) | Composite resin (CEREC inlay with Paradigm MZ100) | No | Cyclic-load-to-failure test | Yes |
| 2013 | Bianchi E Silva et al. [31] | Influence of restorative techniques on fracture load of endodontically treated premolars | In vitro study | 60 maxillar premolars | Yes | MOD with and without cusp reduction | 10 | Four Seasons composite resin (Ivoclar/Vivadent) |
1. Composite resin (Adoro) with and without cusp coverage 2. Ceramic (IPS Empress) with and without cusp coverage |
No | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2015 | Frankenberger et al. [32] | Stability of endodontically treated teeth with differently invasive restorations: Adhesive vs. non-adhesive cusp stabilization | In vitro study | 264 third molars | Yes | 1. MO 2. MOD 3. MO + cusp reduction 4. MOD + cusp reduction |
8 | 1. Bulkfill composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) 2. Amalgam |
1. Composite resin (IPS Empress) 2. Celtra Duo 3. e.max CAD 4. Lava Ultimate 5. Enamic 6. Gold |
Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | No |
| 2016 | Al Amri et al. [33] | Fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular first molars with conservative access cavity and different restorative techniques: An in vitro study | In vitro study | 72 mandibular first molar teeth | Yes | 1. Amalgam cavity 2. Only access cavity 3. Onlay: MOD cavities + cusp reduction 4. Inlay: class I |
12 | 1. Amalgam 2. Composite resin (Tetric_ EvoCeram) |
1. Ceramic inlay (IPS e.max) with and without cusp coverage 2. Zirconium crown |
No | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2016 | Bromberg et al. [34] | Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with horizontal fiberglass posts or indirect techniques | In vitro study | 50 third molars | Yes | MOD cavities (+ cusp reduction for onlays) | 10 |
1. Composite resin (Filtek Z230 XT) 2. Transfixed fiberglass post + direct composite resin Filtek Z230 XT (3M ESPE) |
Ceramic (Lava Ultimate) with and without cusp coverage | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2017 | Ozkir [35] | Effect of restoration material on stress distribution on partial crowns: A 3D finite element analysis | FEA | Maxillar first molar tooth | Simulated | MOD + Functional cusps reduction |
3 | 1. Bulkfill composite resin 2. Conventional hybrid composite resin |
1. Ceramic 2. Composite resin |
- | Von Mises stress values, stress distribution and concentration levels | No |
| 2017 | Soares et al. [36] | Optimization of large MOD restorations: Composite resin inlays vs. short fiber-reinforced direct restorations | In vitro study | 45 maxillar molars | No | MOD cavities | 15 | Fiber-reinforced composite resin base (EverX Posterior, GC) layered with direct composite (Gra- dia Direct posterior; GC, Lueven, Belgium) | 1. Semi-direct inlay (Gradia Direct Posterior; GC, Lueven, Belgium) 2. CAD/CAM inlay (Cerasmart; GC) |
Yes | Cyclic-load-to-failure test | Yes |
| 2019 | Mergulhão et al. [37] | Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different methods | In vitro study | 50 maxillar premolars | Yes | MOD cavities | 10 |
1. Conventional composite resin (Filtek Z350XT) 2. Conventional composite resin restoration (Filtek Z350XT) + horizontal glass fiber post (White Post DC) 3. Bulkfill flowable (Filtek) and bulkfill restorative composites (Filtek) |
Ceramic (IPS e-max) | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2019 | Papadopoulos et al. [38] | Structural integrity evaluation of large MOD restorations fabricated with a bulk-fill and a CAD/CAM resin composite material | In vitro study | 51 mandibular molars | No | MOD | 17 | Bulkfill composite resin (Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior Restorative) | Composite CAD/CAM inlays (Lava Ultimate) | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2020 | Prechtel et al. [39] | Fracture load of 3D printed PEEK inlays compared with milled ones, direct resin composite fillings, and sound teeth | In vitro study | 112 molars | No | Class I + cusp reduction | 16 | Composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) | 1. Essentium PEEK 2. KetaSpire PEEK MS-NT1 (KET) 3. VESTAKEEP i4 G 4. VICTREX PEEK 450G 5. PEEK JUVORA Dental Disc 2 |
Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2020 | Bajunaid et al. [40] | Influence of type of final restoration on the fracture resistance and fracture mode of endodontically treated premolars with occluso-mesial cavities | In vitro study | 60 maxillar premolars | Yes | MO cavities | 15 | Composite resin (Filtek Z250) |
1. Composite resin (Filtek Z250)
2. Ceramic (IPS E.Max CAD/CAM) |
Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2020 | Yazdi et al. [41] | Effect of direct composite and indirect ceramic onlay restorations on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars | In vitro study | 45 maxillar premolars | Yes | MOD + cusp reduction | 15 | Composite resin (P60) | Ceramic (IPS e.max) | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2021 | Daher et al. [42] | Fracture strength of non-invasively reinforced MOD cavities on endodontically treated teeth | In vitro study | 60 mandibular molars | Yes | MOD cavities (+ cusp reduction for onlays) | 12 |
1. Composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) 2. Composite resin + reinforced strip (Tetric EvoCeram + Dentapreg) |
Composite resin (Tetric CAD) with and without cusp reduction | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2021 | Hofsteenge et al. [43] | Influence of preparation design and restorative material on fatigue and fracture strength of restored maxillary premolars | In vitro study | 90 maxillar premolars | No | MOD with and without cusp reduction | 10 |
1. Composite resin (Filtek Supreme XTE) at 3mm with and without cusp reduction
2. Composite resin (Filtek Supreme XTE) at 5mm with and without cusp reduction |
1. Ceramic (Shofu Vintage LD Press) at 3mm with and without cusp reduction
2. Ceramic (Shofu Vintage LD Press) at 5mm with and without cusp reduction |
Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2021 | Kim et al. [44] | Occlusal stress distribution and remaining crack propagation of a cracked tooth treated with different materials and designs: 3D finite element analysis | FEA | Mandibular first molar | No | 1. Inlay form 2. Onlay form 3. Crown restoration |
8 | Composite resin (Filtek Z350) |
1. Composite resin (Tescera ATL) 2. Ceramic (Emax) 3. Gold |
- | Von Mises stress values, stress distribution and concentration levels | No |
| 2023 | Althaqafi [45] | Performance of direct and indirect onlay restorations for structurally compromised teeth | In vitro study | 54 mandibular molars | No | MOD cavities + cusp reduction | 9 | Composite resin (everX Posterior) |
1. Composite resin (Grandio)
2. Ceramic (SHOFU Block HC) |
Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2023 | Garoushi et al. [46] | Evaluation of fracture behavior in short fiber-reinforced direct and indirect overlay restorations | In vitro study | 120 molars | No | MOD cavities + cusp reduction | 15 | 1. Particulate-filled composite (PFC) (G-aenial Posterior) 2. PFC + different increment of short-fiber composite (SFC) (everX Flow Bulk shade) |
1. Cerasmart with SFC 2. Cerasmart without SFC 3. LiSi emax with SFC 4. Lisi emax without SFC |
Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |
| 2023 | Tsertsidou et al. [47] | Fracture resistance of Class II MOD cavities restored by direct and indirect techniques and different materials combination | In vitro study | 60 maxillar molars | No | MOD | 15 |
1. Composite resin (Tetric) 2. Short-fiber-reinforced composite (EverX posterior Bulk shade) + composite resin 3. Ribbond + composite resin |
Composite resin (Brilliant Crios) | Yes | Fracture resistance test: static compressive strength | Yes |